ReportWire

Tag: trial and procedure

  • Federal judge rules Oregon gun law doesn’t violate Second Amendment | CNN Politics

    Federal judge rules Oregon gun law doesn’t violate Second Amendment | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge in Oregon ruled on Friday that a new state gun law does not violate the US Constitution, keeping one of the toughest gun laws in the country in place.

    US District Court Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Ballot Measure 114’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are constitutional because these magazines are “not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.”

    “Even if LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment, BM 114’s restrictions are consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety,” the ruling said.

    The law strengthens background checks and prohibits the sale and transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. It also closes the “Charleston Loophole,” which allows gun purchases to move forward by default after three days even if a background check has not been completed. The law also requires state police to complete background checks on individuals before a gun sale or transfer is made.

    Since passing in November, the measure has faced a number of legal challenges, with the NRA’s legislative action arm lamenting it as “the nation’s most extreme gun control Initiative.”

    But Immergut’s ruling maintains that while the Second Amendment does protect against “bearable arms” as listed in the US Constitution, large-capacity magazines are a “subset of magazines” – and therefore, not considered a bearable arm.

    “Magazines are an accessory to firearms, rather than a specific type of firearm,” Immergut said. “At the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification through to the late nineteenth century, firearm accessories like cartridge boxes – which held ammunition but, unlike modern magazines, did not feed the ammunition into firearms – were not considered ‘arms’ but instead were considered ‘accouterments,’” the ruling said.

    The measure is one of several gun control laws that passed in 2022, the second-highest year for mass shootings in the United States on record.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Giuliani and election fraud promoters didn’t vet claims, new court documents show | CNN Politics

    Giuliani and election fraud promoters didn’t vet claims, new court documents show | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New court filings in a defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani show the promoters of the election fraud narrative after Donald Trump lost the presidency failed to do basic vetting of the claims they were touting – and didn’t see such vetting as necessary.

    For instance, in a December 2020 text cited in Tuesday’s filing, Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn said that the president wanted simple examples of election fraud, which didn’t need to be proven.

    “Urgent POTUS request need best examples of ‘election fraud’ that we’ve alleged that’s super easy to explain,” Epshteyn wrote, according to evidence attached to the filing. “Doesn’t necessarily have to be proven, but does need to be easy to understand. Is there any sort of ‘greatest hits’ clearinghouse that anyone has for best examples?”

    The documents were among a trove of evidence presented by two Georgia election workers suing Giuliani, a former Trump lawyer, for allegedly smearing them after the 2020 election. They are now asking a federal court to hold Giuliani liable for possibly losing crucial evidence after he pulled out of settlement talks.

    Giuliani is feeling legal pressure related to his work for Trump to contest the election in 2020, after he sat for interviews with the special counsel’s criminal investigation in June and faces possible disbarment as an attorney. The evidence in the lawsuit from Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss of Georgia, who were at the center of Giuliani’s claims that vote-counting was fraudulent in the state, includes documents that could be pursued by criminal investigators as well.

    Freeman and Moss’s attorneys allege Giuliani never took necessary steps to preserve his electronic data after the election. They say Giuliani testified in a deposition that he had used multiple cell phones, email addresses and other communications applications after the election, but hadn’t looked thoroughly through those records in the course of the lawsuit. Instead, he said his phones had been “wiped out” after the FBI seized them in April 2021 as part of a separate criminal investigation.

    “Sanctions exist to remedy the precise situation here—a sophisticated party’s abuse of judicial process designed to avoid accountability, at enormous expense to the parties and this Court. Defendant Giuliani should know better. His conduct warrants severe sanctions,” Moss and Freeman’s attorneys wrote to the federal court on Tuesday night.

    Giuliani already was fined $90,000 to reimburse the Georgia workers’ attorneys for a previous dispute they had over evidence gathering.

    In recent days, Giuliani’s attorney approached Freeman and Moss’ lawyers to discuss an “agreement,” or at least a partial settlement, according to court filings. On Monday, however, Giuliani told them he couldn’t agree to “key principles” both sides had negotiated, keeping the lawsuit alive, according to the latest filing.

    In a statement, Giuliani adviser Ted Goodman said the plaintiffs are attempting to “embarrass” the former mayor.

    “The requests by these lawyers were deliberately overly burdensome, and sought information well beyond the scope of this case—including divorce records—in an effort to harass, intimidate and embarrass Mayor Rudy Giuliani,” Goodman said. “It’s part of a larger effort to smear and silence Mayor Giuliani for daring to ask questions, and for challenging the accepted narrative. They can’t take away the fact that Giuliani is objectively one of the most effective prosecutors in American history who took down the Mafia, cleaned up New York City and comforted the nation following 9/11.”

    The plaintiffs’ lawyers have deposed key players like Bernie Kerik, who was tasked with helping Giuliani to collect supposed fraud evidence; Christina Bobb, the then-OANN correspondent who moonlighted as a legal adviser to the Trump team; and Giuliani himself.

    In excerpts of a deposition Giuliani gave in the case, the former New York mayor says that he cannot recall running a criminal background check to firm up a claim he made that Freeman had an arrest record and a history of voter fraud.

    “You didn’t think it was important to do that before you accused them of having a criminal background?” the plaintiffs’ lawyer asked Giuliani, referring to his clients.

    “I just repeated what I was told,” Giuliani said.

    In the litigation, his attorneys have acknowledged that she had no such criminal record, but Giuliani said in the March 1 deposition that he had only in recent days asked Kerik to run a criminal background check on her.

    Giuliani was also questioned about a strategic plan – partially tweeted out by Kerik in late December 2020 – that laid out several claims of voter fraud across the country. According to evidence obtained by the plaintiffs described in the Giuliani deposition, Giuliani had noted that the communications plan needed “confirmation of arrest and evidence.”

    Giuliani testified that he believed that, before the allegations were handed to the White House, they should be confirmed. But Giuliani could not say for sure whether the uncorroborated version of the claims was ultimately shared with the White House.

    “This is so confusing, I don’t know what they told the White House,” Giuliani said in the deposition, adding that “I was not at the meeting, by design.”

    In the deposition excerpts, Giuliani goes to great lengths to distance himself from the so-called “Strategic Communications Plan of the Giuliani Presidential Legal Defense Team.” Kerik, meanwhile, testified in his deposition for the lawsuit that Giuliani was aware of the strategic communications plan, which was focused on getting allegations of election fraud in front of state legislators. According to Kerik, the plan and allegations were continually discussed over six weeks.

    The plaintiffs are also touting examples of when Giuliani, according to what they have collected, was made aware that some of the allegations he was making about supposed election fraud in Georgia were false.

    In one email they obtained that was sent to his assistant in December 2020, a Fox News reporter asked Giuliani for comment on statements by an investigator in the Georgia secretary of state’s office that debunked the claims Trump allies were making about the Georgia election workers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Actors union agrees to 11th hour mediation effort, but strike still looms | CNN Business

    Actors union agrees to 11th hour mediation effort, but strike still looms | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The union representing 160,000 actors said on Tuesday it has agreed to a request from studios and streaming services to meet with federal mediators over contract negotiations but is still prepared to go on strike at 11:59 pm PDT on Wednesday unless a deal is reached.

    “We will not be distracted from negotiating in good faith to secure a fair and just deal by the expiration of our agreement,” said the statement from SAG-AFTRA, the actors union. “We are committed to the negotiating process and will explore and exhaust every possible opportunity to make a deal, however we are not confident that the employers have any intention of bargaining toward an agreement.”

    The union has already granted one extension to its contract, which was originally due to expire on July 1. If they go on strike, they will be joining more than 11,000 members of the Writers Guild of America on picket lines against major studios and streaming services. The writers have been on strike for more than two months.

    There was no comment about the mediation request or its acceptance from the Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers (AMPTP), which is negotiating on behalf of the studios, including Amazon

    (AMZN)
    , Apple

    (AAPL)
    , CBS

    (VIAC)
    , Disney

    (DIS)
    , NBC Universal, Netflix

    (NFLX)
    , Paramount Global, Sony

    (SNE)
    and CNN parent company Warner Bros. Discovery.

    SAG-AFTRA said that news reports were published about management’s desire for mediation even before the request was made of union negotiators at the bargaining table.

    “The AMPTP has abused our trust and damaged the respect we have for them in this process,” said the union’s statement. “We will not be manipulated by this cynical ploy to engineer an extension when the companies have had more than enough time to make a fair deal.”

    Asked about that statement from SAG-AFTRA, the AMPTP declined to comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas sued over plan to deploy floating barrier on Rio Grande to curb border crossings | CNN

    Texas sued over plan to deploy floating barrier on Rio Grande to curb border crossings | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The owner of a Texas canoe and kayaking company filed a lawsuit on Friday seeking to stop the installation of a marine floating barrier on the Rio Grande, claiming Gov. Greg Abbott has no right to regulate the border.

    The lawsuit was filed on the same day that Texas started deploying buoys for the barrier in an attempt to deter migrant crossings on the river along the US-Mexico border.

    The suit lists the state of Texas and Abbott, as well as the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard. CNN has reached out to Abbott’s office for comment.

    “Our lawsuit seeks to protect communities on the Texas-Mexico border from Governor Abbott’s misleading politics,” said attorney Carlos Flores, who represents plaintiff Jessie Fuentes, the owner of Epi’s Canoe & Kayak Team Llc.

    Abbott, a longtime critic of the Biden administration’s border policies, announced the plan to install the 1,000-foot floating barrier last month.

    The lawsuit alleges the buoys will prevent Epi’s and Fuentes, the company’s owner-operator, from conducting tours and canoe and kayak sessions in the border town Eagle Pass, causing “imminent and irreparable harm to EPI.”

    The suit accuses the Republican governor of misapplying the Texas Disaster Act of 1975 to justify the buoy system – which “has no logical connection to the purpose of the Disaster Act, which is to respond to ‘the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or man-made cause.’ “

    Abbott, the suit said, cannot “create his own border patrol agency to regulate the border and prevent immigrants from entering Texas.”

    Additionally, the US Constitution and federal statues do not empower Texas with authority to enforce immigration laws, according to the suit.

    The suit said the buoys “represent a hateful policy that intends to create the impression that Mexicans, immigrants, and Mexican Americans … are dangerous.” The floating devices also will prevent Epi’s from conducting tours and canoe and kayak sessions in Eagle Pass, according to the suit.

    Flores said the lawsuit, which seeks a temporary and permanent injunction, was filed on Friday before the buoys were installed in the Rio Grande.

    Abbott posted a 15-second video to Twitter showing buoys being loaded from trailers that would be deployed near Eagle Pass. The Texas Department of Public Safety is overseeing the deployment, the governor said in the tweet Friday.

    During last month’s announcement, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Col. Steven McCraw touted the buoy barrier could be “quickly deployed” and said it’s mobile. He explained the buoy would be anchored to the bottom of the waterway, adding the buoys are roughly 4 to 6 feet in height depending on the water level.

    The new barrier comes after a series of migrant drownings in the Rio Grande River in recent days left four people dead, including an infant, officials said.

    Last weekend, a woman and a baby girl were found unresponsive in the river, said Texas DPS Lt. Christopher Olivarez. A dead man and woman were found on Sunday and Monday, respectively, he added.

    In recent years, migrants have resorted to increasingly risky – and often fatal – paths to evade detection and enter the US. In March, a migrant was found dead among a dozen people stowed away in a train car near Eagle Pass.

    In 2022, a Texas National Guardsman drowned in the Rio Grande attempting to rescue a woman crossing the river. That year was the deadliest for migrants crossing the US-Mexico border, with at least 748 people dying at the border.

    Immigrant rights advocates have attributed the rise in deaths at the border to policies that have made it more difficult for migrants to seek refuge in the US.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge slams Supreme Court in gun case while reluctantly ruling in favor of convicted felon | CNN Politics

    Federal judge slams Supreme Court in gun case while reluctantly ruling in favor of convicted felon | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge in Mississippi ruled in favor of a convicted felon in a gun case on Wednesday while simultaneously slamming a recent landmark Second Amendment decision that expanded gun rights and changed the framework lower courts must use as they analyze firearm restrictions.

    In his ruling, Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee who has previously been critical of the Supreme Court decision, dismissed a federal criminal case against a man prosecuted for possessing a firearm despite a past felony conviction prohibiting further gun ownership. The apparent reluctant decision announced by Reeves in his 77-page opinion included a blistering assessment of recent Supreme Court precedent pertaining to guns and public safety.

    At issue was a case involving Jessie Bullock, a Mississippi man who was previously imprisoned for approximately 15 years after being convicted for aggravated assault and manslaughter following a bar fight in 1992.

    Bullock was indicted 26 years later after being found to be a past felon in possession of a firearm, according to the ruling, but petitioned for his case to be dismissed following a landmark Supreme Court ruling last summer.

    That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, changed the framework judges must use to review gun regulations and determined that modern-day laws restricting gun ownership are only constitutional if similar regulations were in place when the Constitution was drafted.

    Going forward, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a gun law could only be justified if it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

    Last November, Reeves released a scorching order expressing frustration with the high court’s new historical legal standard, insisting it had inflicted confusion upon lower courts, and ordered the Justice Department to brief him on whether he needs to appoint an historian to help him decipher the landmark opinion.

    “This court is not a trained historian,” Reeves wrote last year.

    “The justices of the Supreme Court, as distinguished as they may be, are not trained historians,” he continued.

    “And we are not experts in what white, wealthy and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” he said.

    In response to Reeves’ request to the Justice Department for clarity, the Biden administration last year defended a federal statute barring felons from possessing firearms and urged the court not to hire an historian, arguing that the government should win the case without such an intervention.

    In his decision Wednesday dismissing the case against Bullock, Reeves acknowledged the government was in the “unenviable position” of pointing to certain past laws barring felons from possessing firearms, but nevertheless ruled that the Justice Department had not met the burden required to show laws barring felons from possessing firearms met the Bruen decision’s historical test.

    But Reeves repeated his past complaints blasting the entire process courts must now use to determine whether a present-day law had a historical analogue at the time of the founding of the nation.

    “Judges are not historians,” he once again wrote. “We were not trained as historians. We practiced law, not history. And we do not have historians on staff.”

    Reeves also appeared to criticize the very notion of deciding modern laws through the lens of colonial times.

    “Bruen shows us that originalism is now the Supreme Court’s dominant mode of constitutional interpretation,” he wrote. “This Court is not so sure it should be.”

    Reeves added, “This Court is also not sure that ceding this much power to the dead hand of the past is so wise.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lordstown Motors files for bankruptcy and sues former partner Foxconn | CNN Business

    Lordstown Motors files for bankruptcy and sues former partner Foxconn | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lordstown Motors filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday and announced a lawsuit against Foxconn, accusing its former partner of setting out to “destroy” its business.

    The electric vehicle maker, which specializes in pick-up trucks, made a Chapter 11 filing in a Delaware court while simultaneously starting legal action against Foxconn.

    In a statement, the company said it was left with no choice after a high-profile tie-up with Foxconn, the world’s biggest contract electronics manufacturer, fell apart.

    It accused the Taiwanese tech firm of fraud and failing to follow through on promises to invest in the company.

    “Despite our best efforts and earnest commitment to the partnership, Foxconn willfully and repeatedly failed to execute on the agreed-upon strategy, leaving us with Chapter 11 as the only viable option,” Lordstown CEO Edward Hightower said in the statement.

    “We will vigorously pursue our litigation claims against Foxconn accordingly.”

    Foxconn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Officially called Hon Hai Technology Group, Foxconn is best known for making iPhones for Apple

    (AAPL)
    , but has recently made moves toward building electric vehicles. In 2021, it purchased an Ohio factory that Lordstown Motors had itself bought from General Motors in 2019.

    Foxconn also agreed to handle the manufacturing of Lordstown’s electric pick-ups at the site, and to make further investments provided certain milestones were met.

    But the partnership appeared to break down earlier this year. In May, Lordstown disclosed that Foxconn said it wanted to back out of making further investments over claims that the automaker had not upheld its end of the agreement.

    That impasse left the automaker on shaky financial ground. Lordstown warned last month that it could face bankruptcy.

    — This is a developing story and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3 San Antonio officers charged with murder in fatal shooting of woman at her apartment | CNN

    3 San Antonio officers charged with murder in fatal shooting of woman at her apartment | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Three San Antonio police officers were charged with murder on Friday, less than 24 hours after they fatally shot a woman during a police call, their chief announced.

    Officer Eleazar Alejandro, 28; Sgt. Alfred Flores, 45; and Officer Nathaniel Villalobos, 27, are suspended from the force without pay as the investigation continues. All were released on $100,000 bond, Bexar County jail records show, and none has commented to CNN.

    “The shooting officers’ actions were not consistent with SAPD policies and training, and they placed themselves in a situation where they used deadly force which was not reasonable given all the circumstances as we now understand them,” Chief William McManus said in a news conference Friday night.

    Police were responding to a call that a woman later identified as Melissa Ann Perez, 46, was cutting wires to a fire alarm system at her apartment complex, McManus said.

    “It appeared that Ms. Perez was having a mental health crisis,” said the chief.

    After initially speaking with officers outside, Perez went back inside her apartment and locked the door, according to McManus.

    Officers continued to talk to Perez through a rear patio window, urging her to come out, edited and blurred body camera video released by the police department shows.

    “You ain’t got no warrant!” she says twice, according to the body camera video.

    One officer tried to open the window, and McManus said Perez threw a glass candleholder at him, McManus said. She later swung a hammer at an officer but hit the window instead, breaking it, police said.

    According to McManus, one officer opened fire, but Perez was not hit and could be heard still speaking on the body camera video.

    But seconds later, Perez “advanced toward the window again while still holding the hammer, and all three officers opened fire,” McManus said.

    More than a dozen shots are heard on the body camera video. Perez was struck at least twice, McManus said. Officers “attempted life-saving measures,” the arrest warrant said, but Perez died at the scene.

    Although she was allegedly approaching the officers with a hammer when they opened fire, the arrest warrant said Perez “did not pose an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death when she was shot because the defendants had a wall, a window blocked by a television, and a locked door between them.”

    CNN has requested the unedited body camera videos in the case.

    Perez’s children, who range in age from 9 to 24 years old, are have been struck with “incomprehensible grief” following their mothers’ death, the family’s attorney, Dan Packard, told CNN Monday.

    “There’s no words to explain to a 9-year-old how three police officers all thought it was okay to gun this woman down in unison while she was in her own house behind a wall,” Packard said.

    The San Antonio Police Officers’ Association expressed its condolences for Perez’s family in a statement Monday. Citing the active investigation, the association said it “cannot speak to the matter further until the investigation is complete and judicial process is underway.”

    “Following the tragic incident, Chief McManus followed all necessary protocols. All three officers have been suspended indefinitely,” the police association said.

    The swiftness of the charges against the officers reflects a trend as communities reckon with police accountability in the wake of the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

    Five officers in Memphis, Tennessee, were quickly charged in the death of Tyre Nichols, in contrast to earlier cases, such as the police shooting of Jacob Blake, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in which officials decided not to charge the officer five months later.

    Officer use of force also has been under scrutiny nationwide, especially against people facing mental health crises. The City of Rochester, New York, reached a settlement with the family of Daniel Prude, who died following an encounter with police. In Virginia, Irvo Otieno died after being pinned to the floor by security officers at a state mental health facility. And in California, Miles Hall was shot by police during what his family called a mental health episode.

    Melissa Ann Perez

    Perez’ family is “heartbroken,” it said, and plans to file a lawsuit against the city, according to reports and information from family attorney, Dan Packard.

    “We are not talking about a rogue officer who just lost his mind or got mad,” Packard said in an on-camera interview with CNN affiliate KENS 5. “We’re talking about three officers who thought it was OK to gun this woman down in her own house.”

    “We believe that there are systemic problems in the department that allowed this to happen,” Packard added.

    CNN has reached out to Packard for a copy of the suit, once it’s filed.

    Packard told CNN Perez had schizophrenia and may have had prior interactions with police. The attorney said he’s not sure how easily accessible that information would have been to the officers who responded to her home last week.

    “I think that’s an important component that (Perez’s family) are not angry people who are overly suspicious of the police, but this has shattered their trust in the police force and in the system,” Packard said.

    Perez’s family has requested prayers as they grapple with her sudden death.

    “They do not know how these children are going to cope and deal with this and so they take it one day at a time,” the attorney said. “We’re getting them the professional help that they need. But they’re asking for your prayers.”

    The police department will conduct an internal review and turn it over to prosecutors once it is completed. Court records indicate their preliminary hearing is set for July 25.

    CNN left messages with Alejandro and Villalobos requesting comment Saturday. CNN was unable to find contact information for Flores.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Victims’ families, united in grief, face 2 paths to justice as Pittsburgh synagogue shooting death penalty trial moves to next phase | CNN

    Victims’ families, united in grief, face 2 paths to justice as Pittsburgh synagogue shooting death penalty trial moves to next phase | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Federal jurors in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting trial will soon decide whether to sentence the convicted gunman to death or life in prison – two potential avenues for justice that in the years since the deadliest antisemitic attack in US history have found varying levels of support in an otherwise unified community.

    As expected, shooter Robert Bowers was found guilty this month of all 63 counts he faced stemming from the Sabbath morning massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue that left 11 worshipers dead as three congregations gathered to pray. Eleven counts of obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs resulting in death and 11 counts of use and discharge of a firearm to commit murder during a crime of violence were capital counts, making Bowers eligible for the death penalty.

    The 50-year-old shooter’s attorneys never contested he committed the 2018 attack, and the case’s main focus is the issue now at hand: whether he is sentenced to death – still an option amid a federal moratorium on carrying out executions – or life in prison without the possibility of parole. For a death sentence to be handed down, the jury must be unanimous.

    But even in a community united – not only its grief but in its hope justice will be done – unanimity around the death penalty is elusive: In the years since the massacre, the victims’ families and congregations have expressed differing views about whether the shooter should be put to death. Some are convinced so egregious an attack warrants capital punishment, while others fear a death sentence could retraumatize their community or a life sentence would better honor the victims, they’ve said.

    The divergence reflects a broader national split on capital punishment. Recent high-profile cases, too, have shown juries don’t always send mass killers to death row, with the gunman who killed 17 people at a Parkland, Florida, high school and the terrorist who killed eight on a New York City bike path sentenced to life in prison after their juries declined to unanimously opt for death.

    Most of the families of those killed at the Pittsburgh synagogue want the shooter sentenced to die, according to a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle published in November and signed by seven of the nine families whose relatives were murdered.

    “We are not a ruthless, uncompassionate people; we, as a persecuted people, understand when there is a time for compassion and when there is a time to stand up and say enough is enough – such violent hatred will not be tolerated on this earth,” reads the letter written to counter unspecified opinion pieces opposing the US Justice Department’s decision to seek a death sentence.

    “Please don’t tell us how we should feel, what is best for us, what will comfort us and what will bring closure for the victims’ families. You can not and will not speak for us,” it reads. “The massacre of our loved ones was a clear violation of American law – mass murder of Jews for simply being Jewish and practicing Judaism, driven by sheer antisemitism – which the law rightfully deems is a capital offense.”

    Others have offered a different view. The targeted Dor Hadash Congregation previously voiced its opposition to the death penalty in this case, as did the rabbi of New Light Congregation, who narrowly escaped the shooting in which his faith community lost three worshipers. CNN reached out to Rabbi Jonathan Perlman for comment on his prior position.

    “I would like the Pittsburgh killer to be incarcerated for the rest of his life without parole,” Perlman wrote in an August 2019 letter to then-Attorney General William Barr before the decision to seek a death sentence was made. “He should meditate on whether taking action on some white separatist fantasy against the Jewish people was really worth it. Let him live with it forever.”

    Perlman’s focus, he wrote, was “not letting this thug cause my community any further pain.”

    “We are still attending to our wounds, both physical and emotional, and I don’t want to see them reopened any more. Many of us are healing but many of us (have) been re-traumatized multiple times,” Perlman said. “A drawn out and difficult death penalty trial would be a disaster with witnesses and attorneys dredging up horrifying drama and giving this killer the media attention he does not deserve.”

    While the Torah “unambiguously” allows for capital punishment, rabbis in the first and second centuries were hesitant to support its implementation, said David Kraemer, professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary.

    They feared the flaws of a human court system out of concern innocents could be inadvertently punished, he told CNN. Those rabbis believed it best to err on the side of letting a guilty person go free in part because they believed the guilty would receive an appropriate punishment after death.

    “I think the reason they were comfortable with that is because they believed that there was a divine court,” Kraemer said, “that would correct the error that the human court may have made.”

    The Justice Department under Barr, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump, initially chose to try the Pittsburgh shooting as a capital case, even as the US government at that time had not executed a federal death row inmate in almost 20 years. That changed in the Trump administration’s waning days, when 13 federal inmates were put to death over six months ending in January 2021.

    The Dor Hadash Congregation lamented the Barr-era decision, writing afterward in late August 2019 it was “saddened and disappointed” the agency chose to push forward with a capital case, despite a letter the congregation said it had sent that same month asking both sides to agree to a plea deal giving the gunman life in prison without parole.

    “A deal would have honored the memory of Dor Hadash congregant Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, who was firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty,” its statement read. “It would have prevented the attacker from getting the attention and publicity that will inevitably come with a trial, and eliminated any possibility of further trauma that could result from a trial and protracted appeals.”

    The congregation did not feel commenting on the death penalty was appropriate now that the trial has moved on from the guilt phase, its spokesperson told CNN. “We remain very grateful to the Department of Justice and the US Attorney’s office for their work in this matter over the course of the past 4 1/2 years,” Pamina Ewing of Dor Hadash said.

    Then in July 2021 – a day after he issued a moratorium on federal executions – Democratic President Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland was sent a letter from seven of the nine families of those slain in the Pittsburgh synagogue attack, urging him to continue to pursue a death sentence in the case, according to Diane and Michele Rosenthal, the sisters of victims David and Cecil Rosenthal.

    The letter said the “vast majority of the immediate victim-family members” had not wavered in their desire for the death penalty. “As such, we respectfully beseech you to uphold the prior DOJ decision on the death-penalty qualification of this Capital Murder case and permit it to proceed as originally decided.”

    The letter aimed to “reflect … our support in seeking the death penalty in this particular tragedy,” the sisters told reporters in April, weeks before the trial began. They spoke only for their own family, they said, adding the other signatories had agreed to let them share the letter.

    Ellen Surloff, left, vice president of Congregation Dor Hadash, and Jo Recht, president of the congregation, speak on June 16 after the gunman was found guilty.

    The Justice Department under Garland is prosecuting the case, making it the second federal death penalty trial in the era of Biden, who’d campaigned on a promise to abolish the punishment at the federal level but has taken few substantive steps toward doing so.

    Since his appointment two years ago, Garland has not authorized the department to seek the death penalty in any new cases, a Justice Department spokesman said, and he continues to assess new requests for authorization to seek or withdraw the death penalty on a case-by-case basis, consistent with federal law and the Justice Manual.

    Americans overall remain divided nearly down the middle on the death penalty, as they have been for years following precipitous drops in support for it over recent decades. About 55% of Americans say they are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers, a split that’s been relatively unchanged for at least six consecutive years, polling from Gallup shows.

    And like in Pittsburgh – where community members have supported each other before the trial and during it – victims of violent crime and their families are no monolith. While some express opposition to capital punishment, others look to it for some semblance of closure or justice.

    The Pittsburgh synagogue “massacre was not just a mass murder of innocent citizens during the service in a house of worship. It was an antisemitic hate crime,” Diane Rosenthal said in April. “The death penalty must apply to vindicate justice and to offer some measure of deterrence from horrific hate crimes happening again and again.”

    “We don’t want to be here,” she said, “and we know the emotional toll this trial potentially brings. But we owe it to our brothers, Cecil and David.”

    Added Michele Rosenthal: “The suggestions published or reported that family members be relieved of the stress of a trial or that a cost-benefit analysis dictates a plea are offensive to our family,” she said. “Our family has suffered long and hard over the last four and a half years. … We don’t want to have to continue to defend ourselves and our position.

    “We want justice.”

    Beyond the families, many simply are bracing for the Pittsburgh synagogue trial’s penalty phase and how it may impact those touched by the wider ripples of the attack. After the gunman’s conviction, the Jewish Community Center of Greater Pittsburgh opted to “take no position on what justice is,” its president and CEO told reporters.

    “We trust the justice process,” Brian Schreiber said.

    Whatever comes of the penalty phase, it will be “gut wrenching,” and “reopen wounds,” said Jeff Finkelstein, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh.

    “They keep getting reopened for us here in our Pittsburgh community,” he said, “not just the Jewish community but this greater Pittsburgh region.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rejects Texas and Louisiana challenge to Biden deportation priorities | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court rejects Texas and Louisiana challenge to Biden deportation priorities | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling on Friday, revived the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines that prioritize which noncitizens to deport, dismissing a challenge from two Republican state attorneys general who argued the policies conflicted with immigration law.

    The court said the states, Texas and Louisiana, did not have the “standing,” or the legal right, to sue in the first place in a decision that will further clarify when a state can challenge a federal policy in court going forward.

    The ruling is a major victory for President Joe Biden and the White House, who have consistently argued the need to prioritize who they detain and deport given limited resources. By ruling against the states, the court tightened the rules concerning when states may challenge federal policies with which they disagree. The Biden administration policy was put on pause by a federal judge nearly two years ago and the Supreme Court declined to lift that hold last year.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote Friday’s majority opinion in the case.

    “In sum, the states have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.”

    Kavanaugh said that the executive branch has traditional discretion over whether to take enforcement actions under federal law. He said that if the court were to allow the states to bring the lawsuit at hand, it would “entail expansive judicial direction” of the executive’s arrest policy and would open the door to more lawsuits from states that think the executive is not doing enough to enforce the law in other areas such as drug and gun regulation and obstruction of justice laws.

    “We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path,” Kavanaugh said.

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the administration welcomes the court’s ruling and that his department looks forward to using the immigration guidelines.

    The guidelines “enable DHS to most effectively accomplish its law enforcement mission with the authorities and resources provided by Congress,” Mayorkas said.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a concurring an opinion that concluded that the states also lacked standing, but for different reasons than the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

    At the heart of the dispute was a September 2021 memo from Mayorkas that laid out priorities for the apprehension and removal of certain non-citizens, reversing efforts by former President Donald Trump to increase deportations.

    In his memo, Mayorkas stated that there are approximately 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable non-citizens in the country and that the United States does not have the ability to apprehend and seek to remove all of them. As such, the Department of Homeland Security sought to prioritize those who pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security.  

    Kavanaugh’s opinion stressed that the standing doctrine “helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper – and properly limited – role in our constitutional system.” He said that by ensuring a party has standing to sue, “federal courts prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”

    The majority did not address the underlying question of whether the administration had the authority to implement the policy.

    “We take no position on whether the executive branch here is complying with its legal obligations under §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2),” Kavanaugh wrote, referring to the relevant immigration statutes. “We hold only that the federal courts are not the proper forum to resolve this dispute.”

    Kavanaugh pointed out that five presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.

    In his sole dissent, Alito wrote that this “sweeping executive power endorsed by today’s decision may at first be warmly received by champions of a strong Presidential power, but if presidents can expand their powers as far as they can manage in a test of strength with Congress, presumably Congress can cut executive power as much as it can manage by wielding the formidable weapons at its disposal.”

    “That is not what the Constitution envisions,” he wrote.

    Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst who filed an amicus brief in the immigration case, noted that Friday’s ruling was the second decision within the last week in which the court “held that red states lacked standing to challenge a federal policy – perhaps a signal of dissatisfaction with how liberally lower courts, especially the Fifth Circuit, have permitted these challenges to go forward.”

    “And it’s the second in the last two years in which it has reversed a nationwide injunction against a Biden immigration policy in a suit brought by Texas,” Vladeck said. “When states are the right plaintiffs to challenge federal policies is also one of the central issues before the court in the challenges to Biden’s student loan program – in which the court is expected to rule next week.”

    Kavanaugh’s opinion emphasized that, in “holding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing, we do not suggest that federal courts may never entertain cases involving the executive branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.”

    In court, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stressed that Congress has never provided the funds to detain everyone, prompting different administrations to consider how to prioritize limited funds. She noted that the executive branch retains the authority to focus its “limited resources” on non-citizens who are higher priorities for removal and warned that if the states were to prevail, it would “scramble” immigration enforcement on the ground, leading to a totally unmanageable landscape. She said the states’ view in the case was a “senseless” way to run an immigration system.

    “I think that that is bad for the executive branch. I think it’s bad for the American public and I think it’s bad for Article Three courts,” she said.  

    The guidelines call for an assessment of the “totality of the facts and circumstances” instead of the development of a bright-line rule. The government lists aggravating factors weighing in favor of an enforcement action, including the gravity of the offense and the use of a firearm, but it also lists mitigating factors that include the age of the immigrant. 

    Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, representing Texas and Louisiana, argued that the administration lacked the authority to issue the memo because it conflicts with existing federal law. He accused the government of treating immigration law in the area as “discretionary” and not “mandatory” and argued that the executive branch lacks the authority to “disregard” Congress’ instruction.

    “The states prove their standing at trial based on harms well recognized,” Stone said, emphasizing the costs incurred when the government “violates federal law.”

    A district court judge blocked the guidelines nationwide. “Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization’ the executive branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates,” ruled Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee on the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “The law does not sanction this approach.” 

    A federal appeals court declined to issue a stay of the decision, prompting the Biden administration to ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief last July. A 5-4 court ruled against the administration, allowing the lower court’s decision to remain in effect while the legal challenge played out.

    Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined her three liberal colleagues in dissent without providing any explanation for her vote.  

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The ‘climate kids’ want a court to force Montana’s state government to go green | CNN

    The ‘climate kids’ want a court to force Montana’s state government to go green | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Helena, Montana
    CNN
     — 

    It’s a Big Sky story fit for a big screen.

    On one side: 16 kids from ranches, reservations and tourist boomtowns across Montana – a group of wannabe climate avengers ranging in age from 5 to 22 and assembled to fight for a livable planet.

    On the other side: Montana’s governor, attorney general and the Republican supermajorities of both houses, who may have lost a three-year fight to kill the nation’s first constitutional climate case before it hit court, but are still determined to let oil, gas and coal keep flowing for generations.

    The setting is a small courtroom in Helena and the whole plot pivots around the Montana constitution, widely considered the greenest in the nation.

    “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations,” reads Article 9, and those pivotal words “clean and healthful environment” are also guaranteed separately in the state’s bill of rights.

    “This case is about the equal rights of children,” attorney Roger Sullivan began in his opening argument in Held vs. Montana this week, “and their need now for extraordinary protection from the extraordinary dangers of fossil fuel pollution and climate crisis that their state government is exposing them to.”

    In the half-century since the environmental promises were added to the constitution, the Treasure State has never rejected a fossil fuel project for potential harm to air or water. And this spring, after a county judge cited the constitution in pulling the permit of a new gas-fired power plant, state leaders quickly crafted House Bill 971 to make it illegal for any state agency to analyze climate impacts when assessing large projects, like power plants, that need environmental review.

    In a region full of ranchers and farmers who depend on stable weather and the kind of National Park beauty that draws millions of outdoor enthusiasts a year, the bill created the most buzz by far in the May legislative session, drawing more than 1,000 comments.

    But while 95% of the comments were opposed, according to a legislature count, the bill passed.

    “Skinny cows and dead cattle,” Rikki Held said, when asked how drought changed her family’s Broadus ranch.

    Since she was the only plaintiff of legal age when the suit was filed, the historic case bears her name. Now finally on the stand, she described with emotion what it was like to work through smoke and ash on 110°F days. “We have the technology and knowledge,” said Held, now an environmental science major at Colorado College. “We just need empathy and willingness to do the right thing.”

    One after another, her fellow plaintiffs have testified how the effects of a warming planet are already causing them physical, emotional and financial pain. “You know, it’s really scary seeing what you care for disappear right in front of your eyes,” said Sariel, a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, after describing how the loss of consistent snow affects everything from native plants to tribal traditions.

    “Do you believe the state of Montana has a responsibility to protect this land for you?” a lawyer asked Sariel, who, like the other children who were under 18 when the case was filed, is being referred to only by her first name. “Yes, I do,” she replied in a soft voice. “It’s not only written in our constitution, an inherent right to a healthy land and environment, but it’s also just about being a decent person.”

    “During the course of this trial, the court will hear lots of emotions,” Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell said in his opening argument. “Lots of assumptions, accusations, speculation, prognostication … including sweeping, dramatic assertions of doom that awaits us all.” But this case is “far more boring,” Russell argued, and is little more than a show trial over statutes “devoid of any regulatory authority.”

    Montana’s population of 1.1 million is “simply too minuscule to make any difference in climate change,” Russell told the court, “which is a global issue that effectively relegates Montana’s role to that of a spectator.”

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs have tried to poke holes in this argument, pointing out Montana’s outsized energy footprint.

    On Thursday, Peter Erickson, a greenhouse gas emissions expert and witness for the plaintiffs, pointed out Montana has the sixth largest per-capita energy-related CO2 emissions in the nation – behind other big energy-producing states like Wyoming, West Virginia and Louisiana.

    “It’s significant. It’s disproportionately large, given Montana’s population,” Erickson said.

    While attorneys for the state objected when Rikki Held tried to connect her mental health to the climate crisis, they have largely saved cross-examination for the experts as the plaintiffs lay out their case.

    “If the judge ordered that we stop using fossil fuels in Montana would it get us to the point where these plaintiffs are no longer being harmed in your opinion?” Mark Stermitz, an attorney for the state, asked Steven Running, professor emeritus of ecosystem and conservation sciences at the University of Montana.

    “We can’t tell in advance,” said Running, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 as one of the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Because what has been shown in history over and over and over again is when a significant social movement is needed, it often is started by one or two or three people.”

    Montana's state capitol building rises above Helena, even as it is dwarfed by mountains.

    The trial is set to conclude on June 23 and is being heard before Judge Kathy Seeley, with no jury. While Seeley has no power to shut down fossil fuel use or order the end of new extraction permits, a ruling against Montana could help kill the new law outlawing climate impact analysis and set a powerful precedent for similar cases winding their ways through the courts.

    “I think we’re really at a tipping point right now,” Our Children’s Trust attorney Nate Bellinger told CNN. The Oregon-based legal nonprofit has filed similar actions in all 50 states and will go to trial in September with a group of young Hawaiians suing their state’s transportation department, claiming it is allowing rampant tailpipe pollution. The group also supports the 21 young plaintiffs in Juliana vs. United States, who will get their day in federal court after amending their complaint that actions by the federal government have caused climate change and violated their constitutional rights.

    When the Ninth Circuit put the Juliana case back on track, 18 Republican-led states – including Montana – tried to intervene as defendants and take on the so-called Climate Kids but were rejected.

    It is likely the case will reach the US Supreme Court.

    Back in the Wild West days of 1889, Montana’s original constitution was written under the guidance of a copper baron named William Clark, who claimed that arsenic pollution from mining gave the women of Butte “a beautiful complexion.”

    But less than a century later, mining and logging had done obvious harm to the rivers, skies and mountainsides of “the last best place,” just as the movements for social change and environmental protection were sweeping the nation.

    This was the backdrop when in 1972, 100 Montanans from all walks of life gathered in the town of Last Chance Gulch to hammer out a new constitution with not a single active politician among them. Mae Nan Ellingson was the youngest delegate back then, and as the plaintiffs set out to establish the intent behind “a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations,” she became the first witness in Held vs. Montana.

    “It was important, I think, for this constitution to make it clear that citizens could enforce their right to a clean environment and not wait until the pollution or the damage had been done,” she testified.

    The Montana Supreme Court agreed with her in a 1999 ruling and the majority wrote, “Our constitution does not require that dead fish float on the surface of our state’s rivers and streams before its farsighted environmental protections can be invoked.”

    Claire Vlases, one of the young plaintiffs, is hopeful the court will check the power of the legislature.

    Regardless of the verdict, it is likely that Held vs. Montana will end up in Montana’s Supreme Court, but for plaintiffs like Claire Vlases who are too young to vote, that will be just fine.

    “I just recently graduated high school, but I think that’s something everyone knows is that we have three branches of government for a reason,” she said, sitting by the river that runs through her Bozeman yard. “The judicial branch is there to keep a check on the other two branches. And that’s what we’re doing here.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How CNN broke the news from Trump’s arraignment despite a courtroom ban on electronics | CNN Business

    How CNN broke the news from Trump’s arraignment despite a courtroom ban on electronics | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.



    CNN
     — 

    The operation was devised on the eve of the arraignment.

    The chief judge presiding over the Miami federal court in which former President Donald Trump was arraigned on Tuesday had made the decision to prohibit electronics inside the courthouse, presenting a major hurdle for news organizations needing to quickly transmit information from the historic proceeding to the outside world. Without access to electronic devices, the rudimentary task was a formidable one.

    After surveying the courthouse on Monday, CNN’s team hatched a plan — one that ultimately led the news network to become the first to report that Trump was in custody and had entered a not guilty plea on 37 counts related to his alleged mishandling of classified intelligence documents.

    It started with hiring a group of local high school students to work as production assistants for the day. Noah Gray, CNN’s senior coordinating producer for special events, had grown up in the Miami area and attended Palmetto Senior High School. He contacted his former teacher, who heads the school’s television production program, and said that CNN wanted to quickly hire some of her students to help with its reporting effort.

    On Tuesday, several of the hired students were brought into the courthouse and seated in an overflow room with reporters Tierney Sneed and Hannah Rabinowitz. As the hearing unfolded and developments transpired, Sneed and Rabinowitz jotted down their reporting on notepads, tearing off sheets with urgent news, and handing it to one of the students. The students then ran the reporting to one of their classmates who was standing by at one of the courthouse’s only two pay phones.

    But there was a twist: the pay phones at the courthouse could only dial local telephone numbers. To overcome the final obstacle, CNN’s staff devised a plan to have the production assistant dial his own personal cell phone, which was located in a nearby RV that the network was using as a mobile headquarters.

    Brad Parks, a CNN regional newsgathering director stationed inside the RV, then picked up the phone, typed up the reporting and relayed the information to the outlet’s Washington, D.C. bureau. Once the reporting was cleared for air by senior leaders in Washington, it was then transmitted to the control room and the network at large. And, from there, it was finally communicated to CNN’s anchors, who delivered the news to viewers across the world.

    “In all my years of field producing, never have I been involved in an operation as complex as this literal game of professional telephone,” Gray told me on Tuesday, after the hearing concluded.

    The remarkable effort to report on the court proceeding was only necessary because of the archaic system in which U.S. federal courts operate. The public continues to have remarkably little access to proceedings in federal courts — no matter how consequential or extraordinary the case may be.

    There are no cameras. There are no audio feeds. There are no phone lines to listen in on. In this case, there was only a courtroom with limited seating and an overflow room in which the proceeding was broadcast. Courtroom sketches were the only visuals the public had the opportunity to see. The artists’ renditions are the only images that will be recorded in history books.

    Over the years, there have been efforts by advocacy groups to increase transparency in courtrooms. But the efforts have only resulted in some minor movement. Generally speaking, federal courts refuse to budge.

    However, given the mile-high stakes of a former president, who is once again running for office while facing criminal charges, calls to allow more transparency have been renewed. In fact, several times during television coverage of the arraignment on Tuesday, legal experts brought the important issue to the forefront.

    “I think this is long overdue,” Elie Honig, CNN’s senior legal analyst, told Jake Tapper, describing the federal courts as “stubbornly old fashioned” and “up on their high horse.”

    “There is this pearl clutching going on for decades among judges,” Honig said. “‘We don’t want our proceedings here to become a spectacle.’ Well, guess what? We need to see this. To put it not so finely, we have a right to see this.”

    Over on MSNBC, Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general, made a similar argument. Katyal contended that public access in this particular case would be a benefit to everyone.

    “I think the benefits for public access cut for both Trump and the prosecution,” Katyal told Nicolle Wallace. “Because Trump can be sure the public will watch for any perceived inequities. And a live stream can be used to combat any misinformation that Trump may try to spread.”

    “And so I think this is the people’s court, this is our American taxpayer dollars that pay for this,” Katyal added, “and all Americans should be able to see it.”

    Whether greater transparency is ultimately granted remains to be seen. But despite the obstacles the federal court system has in place, newsrooms will find a way to climb over them and deliver the news — as was evidenced Tuesday.

    Clarification: This story has been updated to reflect the order to bar electronics from the courthouse came from the chief judge in Miami.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Randy Cox, who was paralyzed after being transported in a New Haven police van, reaches $45M settlement with city, attorneys say | CNN

    Randy Cox, who was paralyzed after being transported in a New Haven police van, reaches $45M settlement with city, attorneys say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Randy Cox, the man who was paralyzed while authorities were transporting him handcuffed and without a seat belt in a police van, reached a $45 million settlement with the City of New Haven, his attorneys announced Saturday.

    The settlement marked the end of a civil lawsuit filed against the southern Connecticut coastal city after the June 2022 incident in which an abrupt stop in the back of a New Haven Police Department van caused Cox to be paralyzed from the chest down.

    The settlement marks the largest involving a police misconduct case in US history, according to Cox’s attorneys, Ben Crump, Louis Rubano and R.J. Weber.

    “The city’s mistakes have been well documented, but today is a moment to look to the future, so New Haven residents can have confidence in their city and their police department,” a joint statement from the attorneys read.

    “This settlement sends a message to the country that we know we must be better than this,” the attorneys said.

    New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker said in a statement that the settlement was “an important and sobering part of this accountability process.”

    “While nothing can ever return Randy’s life to the way it was prior to this incident, we trust that this settlement will allow him to receive the support and medical care he needs to move forward,” Elicker said.

    Of the $45 million settlement funds, the city’s insurance will cover $30 million while the city will pay the remainder, according to a statement from Cox’s attorneys.

    The announcement came just days after four members of the New Haven Board of Police Commissioners voted to dismiss two of the five police officers – Jocelyn Lavandier and Luis Rivera – that were involved in the 2022 incident, which happened on Juneteenth – the annual celebration marking the end of slavery in the US.

    Cox’s attorneys said the decision on Wednesday to terminate Lavandier and Rivera “reflected a commitment to accountability and justice.”

    Lavandier’s attorney, Daniel Ford, called the dismissal “an absolute rush to judgment” in a statement to CNN.

    CNN has reached out to Rivera for comment.

    On June 19, 2022, the two officers, along with Oscar Diaz, Ronald Pressley and Sgt. Betsy Segui, transported Cox following his arrest on suspicion of illegally possessing a handgun, CNN previously reported.

    A handcuffed Cox can be seen in a video of the transport hitting his head on the van’s back wall as it came to a sudden stop.

    The charges against Cox were dropped in October 2022.

    The five officers involved pleaded not guilty in January and have not gone to trial, CNN affiliate WFSB reported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opening statements begin in the trial of Parkland school resource officer who stayed outside during shooting | CNN

    Opening statements begin in the trial of Parkland school resource officer who stayed outside during shooting | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The trial of the former school resource officer who remained outside a Parkland, Florida, high school five years ago while 17 people were gunned down inside started in earnest Wednesday, as prosecutors began presenting their opening statement.

    The state has accused retired Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputy Scot Peterson of failing to follow his active shooter training by staying outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, 2018, taking cover for at least 45 minutes while a former student carried out what remains the deadliest high school shooting in US history. Among the slain were 14 students and three staff members; 17 others were injured.

    The case highlights the expectations for officers responding to active shooters as the country faces a seemingly endless scourge of gun violence, with schools such as those in Parkland; Uvalde, Texas; and Newtown, Connecticut, etched in public memory as the scenes of some of the most devastating massacres.

    Peterson has pleaded not guilty to 11 counts – including seven of felony child neglect, three of culpable negligence and one of perjury – and maintains he did nothing wrong. The 60-year-old, who retired as criticism of his alleged failure mounted, has said he didn’t enter the unfolding scene of carnage in the school’s 1200 building because he couldn’t tell where the gunshots were coming from.

    Before the shooting, Peterson was a dedicated and decorated officer who had served for more than three decades, his attorney, Mark Eiglarsh, told CNN.

    “After a 32-year career, this loving husband and father of four went from hero, and in 4 minutes and 15 seconds, he went to criminal,” the defense lawyer said.

    Jury selection began last Wednesday, yielding a panel of six jurors and four alternates tasked with weighing the state’s unusual case, which experts have described to CNN as the first of its kind and a legal stretch.

    The Broward State Attorney’s Office charged Peterson under a Florida statute that usually applies to caretakers, arguing the then-deputy, in his capacity as a school resource officer, was a caregiver responsible for the protection of the high school’s students and staff.

    Peterson was at the school administration building on February 14, 2018, when the shooter opened fire on the first floor of the 1200 building, according to a probable cause affidavit. Peterson got to the building’s east entrance about 2 minutes later, per a timeline in the affidavit.

    Peterson moved about 75 feet away and “positioned himself behind the wall of the stairwell on the northeast corner of the 700 Building” – a third campus structure – the affidavit says, calling it a “position of cover” he held for the duration of the shooting.

    In a blow to both the state and the defense, the judge last week ruled jurors will not make a trip to the scene of the shooting, as the jury in the shooter’s trial did, CNN affiliate WPLG reported. Eiglarsh wanted the jury to see the exterior of the 1200 building, which has been preserved pending the trials of the shooter and Peterson, while prosecutors had wanted jurors to see the building’s interior, too.

    Beyond the child neglect and culpable negligence charges, Peterson was charged with perjury for telling investigators he heard only two or three gunshots after arriving at the scene of the shooting, the affidavit says, while other witnesses said they’d heard more.

    Peterson’s attorney intends to argue, in part, that his client’s confusion about the location of the shooter was reasonable and shared by others at the scene, including members of law enforcement, teachers and students, Eiglarsh told CNN. The lawyer also contends Peterson’s actions at the scene illustrate he was not negligent but reacting as well as he could with the information he had, he said.

    Additionally, Eiglarsh disagrees with the decision to charge his client under the caretaker statute, he told CNN, calling the choice “preposterous.”

    “He’s not a legal caregiver,” Eiglarsh said, acknowledging he understands the argument. “But he’s not a teacher, he’s not a parent, he’s not a kidnapper who’s responsible for the well-being of a child. He’s not hired by the school system.”

    In the past, Peterson and his attorneys have argued the caretaker statute does not apply to him, emphasizing one person is responsible for the deaths and injuries that day: the gunman, then-19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, who pleaded guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder and was sentenced last year to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a jury declined to unanimously recommend the death penalty.

    That outcome angered and disappointed many victims’ families, including some who see Peterson’s trial as another opportunity for justice.

    “We should not portray or allow the defense team or the deputy who failed to act properly to portray himself as a victim,” Tony Montalto, the father of 14-year-old victim Gina Montalto told CNN before jury selection. “He was charged with keeping the students and staff safe, and he failed to do so.”

    “Regardless of the outcome in the trial,” he said, “I hope he’s haunted every day by the fact that his actions cost lives.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prince Harry gives tense testimony in historic courtroom battle against British media | CNN Business

    Prince Harry gives tense testimony in historic courtroom battle against British media | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Prince Harry has become the first senior British royal to give evidence on a witness stand in 132 years, as his bitter fight against the UK’s tabloid press came to a head in tense courtroom showdown on Tuesday.

    Harry is suing a big British newspaper group, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), alleging the publisher’s journalists hacked his phone and used other illicit means to gather information about his life between 1996 and 2009.

    Follow live updates from the courtroom here.

    As the landmark hearing got underway at the High Court in London, Prince Harry answered questions in a measured, almost hushed tone. He appeared nervous at first, and was at one point asked to raise his voice.

    He faced forensic and detailed questioning from MGN’s lawyer, Andrew Green who probed him on the specifics of his claims and occasionally left him scrambling to recall sections of his written statement or find pieces of evidence.

    But the Duke of Sussex brought to court an overriding argument that he has previously made on television programs and in podcast interviews: that the media’s intrusion and tactics caused him significant distress and wrecked some of his closest relationships.

    And he increasingly asserted himself as the testimony wore on, clashing at times with the publisher’s lawyer as they dissected reams of press coverage and legalese.

    “Some editors and journalists do have blood on their hands” for the distress caused to him, Harry told the court at one point – and “perhaps, inadvertently death,” he added, in reference to his mother Princess Diana.

    Here’s what we learned as Harry began giving evidence on Tuesday.

    Tuesday’s courtroom session touched on dozens of snippets from Harry’s youth, repeated aloud in court as the prince and MGN’s lawyer parsed over the fine details of several news articles.

    Harry’s diagnosis with the “kissing disease,” also known as mono; his teenage trips to the pub; his broken thumb and a back injury sustained in a game of polo; his gap year afternoons on the beach; and Princess Diana’s trips to collect him from school – all were all the subject of stories entered into evidence, and each was dissected by Green and the duke.

    Overall, the prince alleges that about 140 articles published in titles belonging to Mirror Group contained information gathered using unlawful methods, and 33 of those articles have been selected to be considered at the trial.

    In the courtroom on Tuesday, Harry said that “every single article has caused me distress.”

    “All of these articles played an important role – a destructive role – in my growing up,” Harry said. The newspapers in question were on constantly display “in every single palace, unfortunately,” while he was growing up. At school, fellow students and others would read the articles, he said. Harry described the level of coverage as “incredibly invasive.”

    Green began by attempting to establish whether Harry remembered reading the articles in question at the time of publication. When the duke conceded he could not always recall, Green pressed him on how he could realistically argue they could have affected him so strongly. It was a theme to which Green would often return.

    In a written statement entered into the court record on Tuesday, Harry expressed concern that his conversations with family and friends may have been intercepted. He noted that he and his brother, Prince William, “naturally discussed personal aspects of our lives as we trusted each other with the private information we shared.”

    He said private information about his life was raised on voicemails left on the phones of his father Charles and his mother Diana.

    Prince Harry at his school, Eton, in 2003. The period being examined in the trial covers Harry's teenage years and his early 20s.

    Harry said that he would discuss “private and sensitive matters regarding our family and personal lives” on voicemails left on the phone of the then Kate Middleton, now the Princess of Wales, he said. The Duke listed a number of other friends with whom he had been in contact, including the late TV presenter Caroline Flack, in his witness statement.

    He said he recalled “unusual mobile activity” relating to his voicemails that he dismissed at the time, but now alleges was caused by phone hacking.

    “I remember on multiple occasions hearing a voicemail for the first time that wasn’t ‘new’,” he wrote. “I would simply put it down to perhaps a technical glitch, as mobile phones were still relatively new back then, or even just having too many drinks the night before (and having forgotten that I’d listened to it).”

    Also in his written statement, Harry argued that the press actively tried to ruin his relationships. “I always felt as if the tabloids wanted me to be single, as I was much more interesting to them and sold more newspapers,” Harry wrote.

    “Whilst they would, of course, report on my successes in life, it seemed to me that they took far greater pleasure in knocking me down, time and time again,” he added.

    Harry claimed that papers would go about that task by putting “strain” on his relationships and creating distrust between him and his partners. He spoke regularly about one of his former girlfriends, Chelsy Davy, alleging journalists would find out about flight details to photograph her at airports, and would book rooms in the same hotels as the couple when they were on vacation.

    The duke evidently believes that continues to be the case since his marriage to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. “This twisted objective is still pursued to this day even though I’m now married,” he wrote.

    There was a throng of media outside the court on Tuesday.

    The atmosphere in court was occasionally tense. “Are we not, Prince Harry, in the realms of total speculation,” Green asked Harry at one point on Tuesday, after an exchange over a story about the teen prince breaking his thumb. Green had quizzed the duke about which specific illicit means of newsgathering Harry was alleging.

    “I’m not the one who wrote the article,” Harry replied.

    “No, but you’re the one who’s bringing the claim,” Green said.

    Earlier in the morning, when discussing Harry’s use of a landline phone to talk to his mother from school, Harry suggested that either that phone or Diana’s could have been hacked.

    “That’s just speculation you’ve come up with now,” Green said in response.

    The exchanges between Harry and Green ultimately settled into a predictable pattern; when a new article was brought up, Green would press Harry on how he could know that the information was obtained illegally, and not through typical means.

    Harry would often respond that he couldn’t fathom how information would have made its way into newspapers without illicit involvement. And he would repeatedly assert that the journalists who wrote the stories, not the subject of the stories, should answer questions about their sourcing.

    There were times during the back-and-forth between Harry and Green when the prince appeared uncomfortable or unaware of the minutiae of his case.

    Harry at one point joked that he was being put through a “workout” by having to repeatedly reach for bundles of evidence, stacked in folders beside him.

    Green offered to arrange for someone to help the prince navigate the evidence, and Harry would often reply “if you say so,” when Green sought to establish details of the articles the prince’s team entered into evidence.

    After a brief mid-morning recess, the judge asked Harry to raise his voice to ensure he could be heard throughout the courtroom, telling the duke that a number of observers in the courtroom had struggled to hear him.

    The questioning was far more intense and detailed than anything Harry has experienced in the many television and podcast interviews he has given on the topic of press intrusion.

    And Green sought to poke a number of holes in Harry’s argument, including that Harry was initially unaware of several specific stories, or that details in those stories could not have come through phone hacking as they had already been reported by other outlets.

    In a lengthy witness statement and over the course of an hours-long testimony, the Duke of Sussex touched on a number of topics. They included:

    The British government: Harry criticized the current Conservative government in his written testimony, in particular for what he described as an overly close relationship with the media.

    “On a national level as, at the moment, our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our government – both of which I believe are at rock bottom,” Harry wrote.

    He added that Rishi Sunak’s government “clearly have no appetite” for press regulation, “because their friends in the press said so.”

    Piers Morgan: The British broadcaster was the editor of The Mirror from 1995 to 2004, and has been intensely critical of the duke and his wife, Meghan, in recent years. “The thought of Piers Morgan and his band of journalists earwigging into my mother’s private and sensitive messages … makes me feel physically sick,” Harry wrote in his evidence.

    He claimed that, in response to his lawsuit, “myself and my wife have been subjected to a barrage of horrific personal attacks and intimidation from Piers Morgan,” suggesting that Morgan has taken the stance “in the hope that I will back down.”

    Morgan has been unapologetic about his criticism of the pair, calling them “repulsive narcissistic hypocrites” in one December tweet.

    The Queen’s concerns: Harry said he had recently learned that Queen Elizabeth II had a member of her staff secretly fly to Australia in 2003, and stay in a house down the road from where Harry was staying on his gap year.

    “She was concerned about the extent of the coverage of my trip and wanted someone I knew to be nearby, in case I needed support,” Harry wrote.

    At the time Harry had been photographed on the beach with friends – photos that Harry claims must have been obtained illicitly, because he did not understand how any journalists would know he was there.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man indicted for the murder of rapper Takeoff | CNN

    Man indicted for the murder of rapper Takeoff | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A grand jury in Harris County, Texas, on Thursday indicted a man for the murder of Takeoff, a member of the rap group Migos.

    Patrick Clark, 33, was arrested in connection with the death in December.

    Takeoff, 28, was shot to death outside a private party at 810 Billiards and Bowling in Houston on November 1. “There was an argument outside the bowling alley which led to the shooting,” Houston Police Chief Troy Finner said at the time. Another man, Cameron Joshua, was arrested and charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon in relation to the shooting.

    Police described Takeoff as an “innocent bystander” to the argument that preceded the shooting.

    In the arraignment document, the state claims Clark “unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly commit the felony offense of Deadly Conduct by knowingly discharging a firearm at and in the direction of” Takeoff.

    Clark’s defense attorney, Letitia Quiñones-Hollins, told CNN that the indictment was expected.

    “We would ask people to remember that getting an indictment requires meeting a very, very minimal standard of proof,” she said in a statement. “When we get inside a courtroom and in front of a jury, where we will be able to put on our evidence and cross-examine the state’s witnesses – where the standard of proof is guilt beyond reasonable doubt – we expect the jury will come back with a verdict of not guilty.”

    Clark remains under house arrest on $1 million bond.

    Takeoff was the youngest member of the trio Migos, alongside his uncle Quavo and rapper Offset. Artists including Justin Bieber and Drake remembered Takeoff as a talented rapper and loving friend and family member at his memorial last year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alabama death row inmate cannot be executed due to intellectual disability, appeals court rules | CNN

    Alabama death row inmate cannot be executed due to intellectual disability, appeals court rules | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    An appeals court has ruled the state of Alabama cannot execute man with an intellectual disability who was sentenced to death for murdering a man in 1997, upholding a lower court’s decision.

    The US Eleventh Court of Appeals’ decision on Friday means that 53-year-old Joseph Clifton Smith cannot be executed unless the decision is overturned by the US Supreme Court.

    In a statement released after the appeals court decision, Amanda Priest, communications director for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, said, “Smith’s IQ scores have consistently placed his IQ above that of someone who is intellectually disabled. The Attorney General thinks his death sentence was both just and constitutional.”

    “The Attorney General disagrees with the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, and will seek review from the United States Supreme Court,” the statement concluded

    In 2021, a US District Court judge ruled that due to his intellectual disability, Smith could not “constitutionally be executed,” and vacated his death sentence.

    The judge referenced the district court’s finding that Smith’s “intellectual and adaptive functioning issues clearly arose before he was 18 years of age,” according to the 2021 appeals court ruling, which agreed with the lower court.

    Smith confessed to murdering Durk Van Dam, whose body was found “in an isolated area near his pick-up truck” in Mobile County in southwest Alabama, according to the court’s Friday ruling. Smith “offered two conflicting versions of the crime,” the ruling says – first admitting he watched Van Dam’s murder and then saying he participated but didn’t intend to kill the man.

    The case went to trial and the jury found Smith guilty, the order states. During his sentencing proceedings, Smith’s mother and sister testified that his father was “an abusive alcoholic,” according to the ruling.

    Smith had struggled in school since as early as the first grade, the order says, which led to his teacher labeling him as an “underachiever” before he underwent an “intellectual evaluation,” which gave him an IQ score of 75, the court said. When he was in fourth grade, Smith was tested again and placed in a learning-disability class – at the same time as his parents were going through a divorce, the court said.

    “After that placement, Smith developed an unpredictable temper and often fought with classmates. His behavior became so troublesome that his school placed him in an ‘emotionally conflicted classroom,’” the ruling states.

    Smith then failed the seventh and eighth grades before dropping out of school entirely, the ruling says, and he then spent “much of the next fifteen years in prison” for burglary and receiving stolen property.

    One of the witnesses in Smith’s evidentiary hearing held by the district court to determine whether he has an intellectual disability was Dr. Daniel Reschly, a certified school psychologist, the ruling says.

    The court ultimately determined that Smith “has significant deficits in social/interpersonal skills, self-direction, independent home living, and functional academics,” the ruling says.

    In its conclusion, the appeals court wrote: “We hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Smith is intellectually disabled and, as a result, that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment vacating Smith’s death sentence.”

    “This case is an example of why process is so important in habeas cases and why we should not rush to enforce death sentences—the only form of punishment that can’t be undone,” the office of Smith’s federal public defender said in a statement after the appeals court decision.

    “Originally, this same District Court denied Mr. Smith the opportunity to be heard, and it was an Eleventh Circuit decision that allowed a hearing that created this avenue for relief,” the statement said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jim Brown Fast Facts | CNN

    Jim Brown Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of activist, actor and Pro Football Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown. He played his entire career with the Cleveland Browns.

    Birth date: February 17, 1936

    Birth place: St. Simons Island, Georgia

    Birth name: James Nathaniel Brown

    Father: Swinton Brown, a professional boxer

    Mother: Theresa Brown, a housekeeper

    Marriages: Monique Gunthrop (1997-present); Sue Jones (1958-1972, divorced)

    Children: with Monique Gunthrop: Aris and Morgan; with Sue Jones: Kim, Kevin (twins) and James Jr.; with Kim Jones: Kimberly; with Brenda Ayres: Shellee; mother’s name unavailable publicly: Karen Brown Ward

    Education: Syracuse University, B.A., 1957

    At Syracuse, Brown played football, lacrosse, basketball and ran track.

    Qualified for the 1956 Olympics as a decathlete, but did not compete in order to focus on football.

    Inducted into the the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1971, the College Football Hall of Fame in 1995 and National Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 1983.

    Led the NFL in rushing eight out of his nine seasons.

    Played in nine straight Pro Bowls, for the 1957-1965 seasons.

    NFL’s MVP in 1957, 1958 and 1965.

    Starred in movies such as “The Dirty Dozen,” “Ice Station Zebra” and “100 Rifles.”

    1957 – First round draft pick, sixth player overall, by the Cleveland Browns. Later named Rookie of the Year and also Most Valuable Player.

    1960s – Founds the Negro Industrial and Economic Union (later renamed the Black Economic Union) to support black entrepreneurship.

    1964 – “Off My Chest,” Brown’s autobiography, with Myron Cope, is published.

    1964 – Film debut in “Rio Conchos.”

    December 27, 1964 – The Cleveland Browns defeat the Baltimore Colts 27-0 in the NFL Championship Game. (The Super Bowl replaced the NFL Championship Game in 1967).

    July 24, 1965 – A jury finds Brown not guilty of assault and battery against 18-year-old Brenda Ayres, after an incident in his hotel room.

    July 14, 1966 – After nine seasons and 118 games, retires from professional football at the age of 30.

    1968 – Brown is charged with assault with intent to commit murder after model Eva Bohn-Chin is found beneath the balcony of Brown’s second floor apartment. The charge is later dismissed after Bohn-Chin refuses to name him as her assailant. Brown also pays a $300 fine for striking a deputy sheriff during the same incident.

    1969 – Stars in “100 Rifles” with Raquel Welch. It is one of the first major studio films to feature an interracial love scene.

    February 5, 1970 – A jury finds Brown not guilty of assault and battery charges, stemming from a traffic accident in 1969.

    1971 – Is inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, in his first year of eligibility.

    1978 – Is sentenced to one day in jail for beating and choking his golfing partner, Frank Snow. Brown is also fined $500 and receives two years’ probation.

    1985 – Brown is charged with raping and assaulting a 33-year-old woman in his home. The judge later dismisses the charges based on inconsistent testimony.

    August 1986 – Brown is arrested for assaulting live-in girlfriend Debra Clark. The charges are later dropped after Clark refuses to prosecute.

    1988 – Founds the Amer-I-Can program, an organization dedicated to stopping gang violence and helping individuals “take charge of their lives and achieve their full potential.”

    1989 – Brown’s memoir, with Steve Delsohn, “Out of Bounds,” is published.

    June 15, 1999 – Following a domestic disturbance with his wife Monique Gunthrop Brown, Brown is arrested and charged with making terrorist threats toward his wife. In the 911 tape, Monique Brown accuses Brown of threatening to kill her, a claim she later recants.

    September 10, 1999 – A jury finds Brown guilty of vandalism for smashing his wife’s car with a shovel during the June incident. He is later fined $1,800 and sentenced to three years’ probation, one year of domestic violence counseling and 400 hours community service or 40 hours on a work crew.

    January 5, 2000 – Brown is sentenced to six months in jail for refusing the court-ordered counseling and community service hours handed down in 1999. He serves almost four months in the Ventura County jail in 2002.

    2002 – Spike Lee’s documentary, “Jim Brown: All American,” is released.

    2005-2010 – Executive adviser to the Cleveland Browns.

    2008 – Files a lawsuit against Electronic Arts, alleging that the video game company used his likeness in the Madden NFL video games without his consent.

    2009 – A federal judge dismisses Brown’s 2008 lawsuit against Electronic Arts. An appeals court upholds the ruling in 2013.

    May 29, 2013 – Is named special adviser to the Cleveland Browns.

    July 2014 – Files a lawsuit against sports memorabilia dealer Lelands, alleging that the online auction dealer was selling Brown’s stolen 1964 championship ring. Lelands countersues Brown in August 2014.

    October 2015 – The lawsuit is settled, and Brown’s ring is returned.

    September 18, 2016 – A bronze statue of Brown is unveiled outside FirstEnergy Stadium, home of the Cleveland Browns. It is the first statue outside the stadium to honor a former player.

    October 11, 2018 – Along with Kanye West, Brown meets with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

    November 22, 2019 – Brown is announced as one of the 100 greatest players in NFL history as part of the NFL 100 All-Time Team.

    January 13, 2020 – ESPN names Brown the number one greatest player in college football’s 150 year history.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NYC bike path terrorist set to be sentenced to life in prison after avoiding death penalty verdict at trial | CNN

    NYC bike path terrorist set to be sentenced to life in prison after avoiding death penalty verdict at trial | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A terrorist convicted of striking and killing eight people with a rented truck on a New York City bike path in an attack for ISIS is scheduled to be sentenced to serve life in prison Wednesday.

    Sayfullo Saipov effectively learned his sentence in March, when the jury in the penalty phase of his trial in Manhattan federal court told a judge it was unable to reach an undivided decision favoring the death penalty on any of the nine capital counts against him.

    The capital counts each carry a mandatory life imprisonment sentence by law after the jury didn’t unanimously vote for the death penalty.

    Saipov’s case was the first death penalty case under the Biden administration.

    About 25 surviving victims and family members of those killed in the attack are expected to give victim impact statements at the sentencing hearing Wednesday morning, according to court filings.

    Of the eight people killed in the attack, five were from Argentina, two were Americans, and one was from Belgium. The majority of those participating in the Manhattan federal court hearing are traveling from Argentina and Belgium, the prosecutors said in a memo.

    The convicted terrorist will have an opportunity to address the court before he is sentenced, but it is unclear if he will do so.

    On Halloween in 2017, Saipov drove a rented U-Haul truck into cyclists and pedestrians on Manhattan’s West Side bike path, then crashed the vehicle into a school bus, authorities said.

    After leaving the truck while brandishing a pellet gun and paintball gun, he was shot by a New York City Police Department officer and taken into custody, officials said.

    The jury convicted Saipov in January of all 28 counts against him for the fatal attack.

    Those counts included murder in aid of racketeering activity, assault with a dangerous weapon and attempted murder in aid of racketeering activity, attempted murder in aid of racketeering activity, provision of material support to ISIS, and violence and destruction of a motor vehicle.

    Saipov is expected to serve his life sentence at the Federal Bureau of Prisons ADX facility in Florence, Colorado, in solitary confinement at least 22 hours a day, his attorneys said during trial.

    Federal prosecutors who say Saipov deserves no leniency want District Judge Vernon Broderick to sentence Saipov to the fullest extent of the sentencing guidelines for his 28-count conviction; eight consecutive life sentences, a consecutive term of 260 years’ imprisonment and two concurrent life sentences.

    “Because Saipov deliberately committed the most abhorrent crime imaginable for which he has expressed no remorse, he deserves no leniency. Only the maximum punishment on each count of conviction will reflect the unimaginable harm inflicted and send the appropriate message that terrorist attacks on innocent civilians will be punished as harshly as the law allows,” prosecutors said in a pre-sentencing court filing.

    The harshest sentence, prosecutors wrote, would be “an exercise of such discretion to hold the defendant fully accountable for his crimes, and to send the appropriate message to the defendant, the public, and any others who might contemplate an attack on U.S. soil.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York City plans to temporarily house migrants in hotels in other counties. Two counties are suing to stop it | CNN

    New York City plans to temporarily house migrants in hotels in other counties. Two counties are suing to stop it | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Following New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ announcement last week that the city will bus some migrants to hotels in nearby counties temporarily, officials in Orange County and Rockland counties filed lawsuits attempting to stop the plan – even as some migrants have already arrived.

    The counties have also issued executive orders barring the arrival of migrants and asylum seekers.

    Filed in state court in Orange County, one of the lawsuits obtained by CNN alleges that the city’s plan exceeds its authority, violates a county executive order and bypasses shelter licensing requirements. It asks the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the city’s plan while the proceeding is pending.

    Orange County officials “oppose the City Respondents’ illegal and misguided attempts to manage their burdens and assumed responsibilities within their borders by offloading them onto the County, which is already overburdened with responsibilities to its own citizens, with no planning whatsoever,” according to the lawsuit.

    Adams had said the new program intends to provide up to four months of temporary shelter for adult men seeking asylum who are already in the city’s care while they try to secure work permits.

    Days after Adams announced plans for Orange and Rockland counties, Orange County Executive Steven Neuhaus issued an executive order stating the migrants would not be permitted to stay in hotels there.

    Rockland County filed its own lawsuit on Tuesday night. The suit, filed in Rockland County Supreme Court, alleges Mayor Adams’ plan to bus migrants to a hotel in the exceeds the city’s legal authority.

    On Friday, a judge granted a temporary restraining order against the Adam’s plan, blocking the city from transporting migrants to a hotel in Rockland County. The city has said it plans to appeal the restraining order. A court hearing is scheduled for May 30 to determine if the order will be extended.

    The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday against Orange and Rockland counties for blocking the arrival of asylum seekers from New York City, according to court documents.

    In issuing orders “expressly seek[ing] to ‘bar migrants’ and ‘asylum seekers’ from coming to the counties from New York City and that further seek to bar local hotels from making their rooms available to migrants for any period of time,” the counties violated due process and equal protection clauses under the US Constitution, the lawsuit says.

    When reached by CNN for comment Thursday, Neuhaus said, “We have not been served with any lawsuit.” CNN on Saturday reached out to Rockland and Orange county officials for further comment on the NYCLU’s lawsuit.

    Rockland County officials said in a statement that while they don’t typically comment on pending litigation, they “feel strongly that what [they] are doing is right and legal as witnessed by the court’s Temporary Restraining Order granted Thursday.”

    The Orange County complaint details multiple examples of the city’s alleged “subterfuge.”

    Orange County authorities believed the city planned to move 60 people to one hotel in the county, according to the lawsuit, but then later learned the city planned to send more than 600 individuals to two hotels. The county claims this would more than double its homeless population, which was about 437 last month, according to the lawsuit.

    After the county issued its executive order, officials were “expressly assured” by the city that buses would not be sent for the time being, according to the lawsuit.

    “Nonetheless, and despite these assurances, busses showed up at the hotel on May 11, 2023, with no notice, and unloaded homeless men pursuant to the City’s illegal Proposed Transfer plan,” the lawsuit says.

    On Wednesday, a spokesperson for Mayor Adams’ office said that the city was “discussing legal and safety concerns with our state partners,” adding that while the city temporarily paused busing migrants to locations outside of New York City, their “plans have not changed.” A spokesperson for Mayor Adams’ office said Thursday that Neuhaus’ statement about alleged assurances that no asylum seekers from the city would arrive in Orange County is inaccurate.

    “New York City has cared for more than 65,000 migrants – sheltering, feeding, and caring for them, and we have done so largely without incident,” spokesperson Fabien Levy said in a statement on Friday.

    “We need the federal government to step up, but until they do, we need other elected officials around the state and country to do their part. Right now, we’re asking Orange County to manage less than ¼ of 1% of the asylum seekers who have come to New York City, with New York paying for shelter, food, and services. We are reviewing our legal options.”

    Orange County also filed a separate complaint Friday against the two hotels within the county planning to house migrants from New York City. The complaint seeks to block the hotels from accepting asylum seekers and “converting” into homeless shelters, alleging it violates the county’s executive order.

    The town of Newburgh, which is located in Orange County, also filed a complaint against one of the hotels. The lawsuit claims that housing the migrants is not permitted under the building’s certificate of occupancy and would violate the town’s municipal and building construction codes.

    “The Mayor’s program did not consider or address the local zoning, building, or fire codes governing the proposed or ‘selected’ housing sites,” the complaint says.

    After Orange County issued its executive order, Newburgh inspectors visited the hotel and noticed “the alterations of beds, insertion of additional bedding, and the alteration of room accommodations,” the lawsuit says. The next day, the hotel received two busloads of people from the city, according to the complaint.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McDonald’s found liable after child suffers burns from ‘hot’ chicken nuggets, Florida jury finds | CNN Business

    McDonald’s found liable after child suffers burns from ‘hot’ chicken nuggets, Florida jury finds | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    A South Florida jury returned a split verdict in a civil lawsuit filed against McDonald’s and one of its franchisees that alleged “dangerously hot” chicken nuggets from a Happy Meal burned a toddler, according to CNN affiliate WPLG.

    The jury on Thursday found that McDonald’s and franchise owner Upchurch Foods liable for failing to properly warn or provide reasonable instructions on the possible harm from the hot McNuggets dispensed at a Tamarac, Florida, drive-thru, the news station reported. However, only Upchurch Foods was found to be negligent. Jurors also found there was no inherent defect in putting McNuggets on the market and no breach of implied warranty.

    The suit was filed in 2019 against McDonald’s and Upchurch Foods. The Fort Lauderdale jury said both were at some fault for the burns sustained by Philana Holmes and Humberto Caraballo Estevez’s daughter when the hot nuggets fell on to her lap, WPLG reported.

    The complaint said Holmes bought and paid for the Happy Meal from the drive-thru and then drove away. The nugget fell and became lodged between her 4-year-old daughter’s leg and car seat, the law firm representing the plaintiffs said.

    “The Chicken McNuggets inside of that Happy Meal were unreasonably and dangerously hot (in terms of temperature),” and caused her “skin and flesh around her thighs to burn,” the complaint alleged, leaving her “disfigured and scarred.”

    The complaint said the franchise should have known the nuggets were “unfit for human handling,” had a duty not to sell them, and it should have adequately trained and supervised its employees.

    The law firm representing the plaintiff, Fischer Redavid, said in a blog post that the case will go to a second trial to “determine the damages owed to our client.”

    The case echoes the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit of the ’90s, in which a woman spilled coffee on her lap and suffered third-degree burns. A jury agreed with her contention that the coffee was unreasonably hot. Fischer Redavid noted that the plaintiff in that case was initially awarded nearly $3 million, but she settled for less after an appeal.

    “This is not the infamous Hot Coffee case; this is Olivia’s case,” the law firm said in a statement to WPLG. “She’s an adorable, innocent child who was severely burned through no fault of her own.”

    In a statement, McDonald’s called it an “unfortunate incident” but that they “respectfully disagree with the verdict.” McDonald’s defense said it had no control over the injuries and damages.

    “Our sympathies go out to this family for what occurred in this unfortunate incident, as we hold customer safety as one of our highest priorities,” local McDonald’s owner and operator, Brent Upchurch, said in a statement. “That’s why our restaurant follows strict rules in accordance with food safety best practices when it comes to cooking and serving our menu items, including Chicken McNuggets.”

    Upchurch said the Tamarac location “did indeed follow” safety protocols.

    Fischer Redavid’s statement said the verdict “reflected the truth, the facts, and the law.”

    “We don’t view this as a ‘split verdict.’ Two defendants went to trial, denying liability. A jury found both liable.”

    – CNN’s Danielle Wiener-Bronner contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link